The truth only seems complicated because lies are so much easier to accept.
From the Tallahassee Democrat: Traffic crashes and injuries decreased by more than four percent last year in Florida, but alcohol-related deaths and motorcycle injuries and crashes have increased, according to traffic statistics released by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
In 2007, Florida saw fatalities and fatal crashes decrease by 4.28 percent and 4.44 percent, respectively.
But not all fatalities are down. Alcohol-related fatalities went up by more than 13 percent, jumping from 1,099 deaths in 2006, to 1,244 in 2007.
Of curse this is just part of a report and it won't be until we see a full report that we can draw more valid conclusions. However this is not a surprising statistic to this writer. It would be surprising had alcohol related fatalities not increased.
However looking at the "could be's" (Always look beyond what you can see. Look for what could be.) related to such a statistic we can ask some interesting questions that may relate to some other fatal traffic occurrences that we do not seem able to get a grasp on.
1. "Fatal crashes" may no longer be a valid measuring tool as in certain instances it is like comparing apples to oranges. Technology has improved crash survivability for auto, light truck and SUV drivers dramatically over the years. With seat belts, air bag, anti lock brakes and structural improvements, a totally incompetent driver can now survive crashes that not long ago would have killed many. Drive behavior may be the more reliable indicator.
Pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists are often counted in the fatality rate and yet have none of the protections mentioned above. They must rely solely on theirs and the other drivers survival skills.
Since it is not required that automobile, light truck and SUV drivers engage in any formal training prior to obtaining a license we are left to guess at the level of their skills. Often times only learning how bad they are after somebody has been killed.
2. In light of the massive public campaigns against driving under the influence, the extremely high fines and harsh punishments for getting arrested while doing so, the percentage of those getting killed in substance/alcohol related crashes continues to climb.
Now it is important to understand this dynamic, as it probable that the reasoning behind the failure to address this issue can be related to other traffic issues that "are not" being addressed. And again we must ask ourselves, as in motorcycle safety, are we applying band aid fixes to a problem that needs a major operation. Because very rarely is it that a person gets caught engaging in a destructive behavior the first time. More often than not an alcohol influenced driver has driven dozens of time under the influence before being caught or having the accident.
MSNBC reports: CHICAGO - More than 30 percent of American adults have abused alcohol or suffered from alcoholism at some point in their lives, and few have received treatment, according to a new government study.
Alcoholics who got treatment first received it, on average, at about age 30 — eight years after they developed dependence on drinking, researchers reported.
“That’s a big lag,” especially combined with the fact that only 24 percent of alcoholics reported receiving any treatment at all, said study co-author Bridget Grant of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Now that little 8 year lag number is significant. That means that the affected individual is probably going to be out there wreaking havoc and engaging in risk taking behaviors for those 8 years.
- Every day in the United States more than 13,000 children and teens take their first drink.
- The 25.9% of underage drinkers who are alcohol abusers and alcohol dependent drink 47.3% of the alcohol that is consumed by all underage drinkers. http://www.alcoholism-information.com/
Alcohol use among the young is rising. Many of them will already have problems "before" they get a drivers license!
So lets add a little fuel to the fire.
700-000 respondents who participated in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys over the 1984-1995 period. The results provide robust evidence that the prevalence of binge drinking is strongly countercyclical. Furthermore, even among those who remain employed, binge drinking increased substantially during economic downturns. This combination of results suggests that recession-induced increases in the prevalence of binge drinking do not simply reflect an increased availability of leisure and may instead reflect the influence of economic stress. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
O.K. so like we knew this. But since we are likely heading into a significant recession (my wallet is already depressed) we thought you should to.
Now keep in mind here, we are not talking about the 70% who have no reported problem. However keep in mind that a certain percentage of them can screw up and drive under the influence.
Also consider that a large majority of the 30% who have a problem consider themselves part of the 70% that do not.
Now just a little more gas on the fire. What are among the first programs cut by state governments in hard financial times? Bingo! Substance Abuse Programs!
So are we surprised that alcohol related fatalities are up? No. In fact it would appear that conditions are ripe for a perfect storm of increased alcohol related fatalities.
Keep in mind. This, despite all the programs and laws, public and private, designed to reduce the abuse of Alcohol.
Although this is not a scientific description of the process and there are parts of it we am not in total agreement with we did think it was worth posting for it's clarity from:
A Spectrum of Need Intensity
by Elizabeth Holtzman
There is a spectrum which begins with innocuous habits, moves on to compulsions and ends with the severity of true addictions.
Habits can be associated with words like usually, prefer, and like. "I like to have a beer while I watch baseball." "I usually eat chocolate every day." " I prefer to have a new car ever two years." The person prefers these things but if they aren't available the desire will pass and the person goes on with life. Habits can be broken with a bit of determination and it doesn't necessarily involve a need for insight or looking at inner defensive structures developed in childhood. If habits become more deeply entrenched and the person finds himself saying " I should stop this but I just can't seem to" then he is moving along the spectrum into the realm of compulsive behavior.
Compulsive behaviors are rooted in a need to reduce tension caused by inner feelings a person wants to avoid or control. Compulsive behaviors are repetitive and seemingly purposeful and are often performed in a ritualistic manner. These behaviors may involve sex, food, caffeine, nicotine, gambling, spending, TV watching, Internet surfing, cleaning, washing, drugs or alcohol. The key point is that the activity is not connected to the purpose it appears to be directed to, and is likely to be excessive. Examples could be a person who is afraid of bonding with a partner choosing to zone out with the TV, or a person who has never had enough love filling up on a gallon of ice cream.
Can't, must and I've got to are words often associated with compulsions. "I've got to buy a scratch ticket from the Dairy Mart in Enfield." "I must exercise today or my day will be ruined." "I can't relax until I clean the house." Behaviors that may have developed as attempts to deal with childhood abuse, neglect or abandonment may then become potentially destructive compulsions in adulthood. In general, compulsive behaviors limit enjoyment of life and intimacy in relationships but they do not necessarily destroy them.
Addiction differs from compulsion in that it inevitably escalates. A web of deceit , cover-ups, and detachment from a sense of self escalate. Harmful consequences can be external, e.g. loss of job, car crashes – or internal , e.g.. detachment, depression, lack of ability to feel or concentrate. There may also be physical consequences such as illness, hypertension and memory loss.
Now how many out there have been able to break a habit such as biting your fingernails. For some it was easy and for some it was probably not easy and some are probably, as I type, chewing them until they bleed wishing they could quit.
Now lets have a little reality check here o.k.
Those who are able to recognize and quit a destructive behavior already have.
Those unable to recognize and/or quit a destructive behavior have not.
Many who are able to quit the destructive behavior will at some point in time resume engaging in it.
Now we do not advocate for giving up on those who can not do for themselves. A person once told me "do not give up until the miracle happens" and I am a true believer in that.
But another truism is that despite all the programs in place the problem is growing. I do not fault the programs for this
(good programs work, we just do not have enough good programs and do have to many bad ones). In fact we did write a paper once on how government interference in these programs diluted their effectiveness. But that would make this post longer than it has become or will be. Suffice it to say the problem is growing.
Now some of you that have read this site know that with the help of a couple of nine volt batteries I can get a little convoluted. So hang on a minute whilst I apply a few fresh batteries. O.K. good I'm ready now. Because we are going to attempt to draw a few analogies that may necessitate you stretching your brain cells and reality just a bit.
Note above where we said that "good programs work, we just do not have enough good programs and do have to many bad ones" also note our contention, and we can prove it, that government can make good programs bad. Now equate that statement to the M$F Basic Rider Curriculum that many states encourage and some require before obtaining a motorcycle endorsement. There is no nationally recognized peer reviewed studies demonstrating that they work.
And although we noted above the increasing number of teens developing substance problems before the age of obtaining a drivers license, there is no program to identify these individuals who
WILL endanger the lives of others immediately upon getting their license. However most of these individuals will be driving vehicles governmentaly mandated to increase their survival rates should
they be involved in the inevitable crash.
The average world citizen has about a 1 in 7 chance of being involved in a crash. National Safety Council (1989 data) the average vehicle is likely to be invoved in some type of crash every 5 years. From: Some Aspects of Road Safety Note thats 1989 data and the number of motorcycles on the road has risen dramatically since then.
So now we are going to get more convoluted and add another high risk behavior that lends itself to habituation and an instantly gratifying way to deal with a compulsion if it itself, does not become a compulsion.
Talking on cell phones. taken from a
lawyers site.
The number of cell phone subscribers has grown from 94 million in 2000 to more than 128 million today. With so many cell phone users out there, it is not difficult to imagine how many people talk on the phone while driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) states that 85 percent of all cell phone customers talk on the phone while driving. It has been estimated that 6 percent of auto accidents each year are caused by drivers talking on their phones. This total means 2,600 people will be killed and 330,000 will be injured in cell phone related car accidents this year.
Some experts suggest drivers carry a phone with them when traveling but recommends people not use them while driving. Results of a recent survey indicate 87 percent of adults believe that using a cell phone while driving impairs a person’s ability to drive. Also, 2 out of 5 people admitted to having close calls or near misses with a driver who was on the phone.
With advances in technology such as internet connections on phones and other portable devices, the distractions will only become greater in the future. Until laws are passed prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving, the only recourse for an injured victim of a distracted driver is a personal injury lawsuit based on the negligence of the driver.
If you have been involved in an automobile accident that you feel may have been caused by a distracted driver or a someone driving while using a cell phone, you need the knowledge and resources of experienced personal injury lawyers who are willing to investigate an accident to the fullest to ensure that their clients get just and adequate compensation for their injuries.
Now Again a
"REALITY CHECK ". Attorneys advertise to take cases such as these for one reason. They know they can win them and make money. The evidence is on their side.
From MADD Rays Site Motocyclists Against Dumb Drivers
(Note: Madd Ray is also an attorney. But one of the good guys. A true Biker Attorney. We are not advertising for him. He does not take cased in Florida unfortunately.)
In the most important series of controlled experimental studies performed on cell phone driving impairment to date, it was found again that the driving impairment associated with cell phone use was at least equal to that of DUI level alcohol intoxication. Indeed the incidence of accidents caused by cell phone users during the controlled simulations was found to be significantly greater than the incidence of accidents caused by those whose driving was impaired by DUI level alcohol intoxication. The most recent of the publications is Strayer, Drews and Crouch, �A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver,� Human Factors, Summer 2006. Strayer first announced his findings demonstrating DUI level impairment associated with cell phone use in 2003. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). �Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver.� In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30).
Driving Under the Influence of a Cell Phone is as Dangerous as DUI Drunk Driving. The Attentional Mechanism Suggests That The Cell Phone Impaired May be Even More Dangerous to Motorcyclists. All Cell Phone Use While Driving Must Be Outlawed. This is a Declaration of War.
By Ray Henke,
Motorcyclists-Against-Dumb-Drivers
Abstract: Auto Driver Cell Phone Use Results in Driving Impairment as Great as DUI Level Alcohol Intoxication. The �Cell Phone Impaired� Are Even More Likely to Cause Accidents than Drunk Drivers. There Is Good Reason to Believe, from the Literature on the Mechanism of Cell Phone Attentional Impairment and the Mechanism of Inattentional Blindness That Cell Phone Driving Impairment Likely Poses an Even Greater Danger to Motorcyclists. Cell Phone Use Should Be Outlawed While Driving For the Benefit of Everyone, Auto Drivers, Motorcyclists, Bicyclists and Pedestrians Alike. Restricting the Use of Handheld Cell Phones Will Not Solve the Problem Because Cell Phone Associated Driving Impairment Does Not Result From the Manual Tasks Associated With Using a Handheld Cell Phone. To the Contrary, Cell Phone Induced Driving Impairment Results From the Distraction of Driver Attention to Internal Cognitive Tasks Associated with Cell Phone Conversation, Away From the External Visual-Spacial Attention Essential for Driving Tasks. Cell Phone Use Also Increases General Traffic Congestion and Commute Time. The Use of Cell Phones By Drivers is Not Essential nor Beneficial to Our Economy. Any Economic Benefit Associated with Cell Phone Use During Worker Commutes Is Likely Offset by Increased Duration of Commutes for All Workers. War is Declared by Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers and the Battleline is Drawn.
Introduction.
The convergence of epidemiological studies and controlled experimental studies demonstrate that "driving under the influence of a cell phone" is as dangerous as DUI drunk driving, resulting in a four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident.. The number of drivers actively using cell phones while driving is epidemic and continuing to rise rapidly, from 4 percent of all drivers on our American streets at any given daylight moment in time as of the year 2000, to 10 percent as of the end of 2005. The dangers posed the large and growing numbers of cell phone impaired drivers escalates muliplicatively each year as there are fewer unimpaired drivers capable of using evasive action to avoid the hazards created by those driving under the influence of their cell phones.
The mechanism of cell phone driving impairment is demonstrated in the controlled experimental literature, confirmed by neurological studies, and supported by the psycological literature to be a form of "inattentional blindness," a constriction of what cell phone users "see" deriving from the shifting of limited conscious capacity for attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell phone conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving.
We suggest that the dangers posed by auto drivers who drive under the influence of cell phone conversation are even greater for the motorcyclists whom they fail to "see.". One obvious reason is that motorcyclists are more vulnerable to serious injury and death resulting from accidents generally and hence from the increased general incidence of accidents caused by the DUI level cell phone impaired. Additionally, auto drivers have a profound preexisting inattentional blindness specific for motorcyclists, as demonstrated by the pre-cell-phone-age studies demonstrating a disproportionate incidence of motorcycle accidents resulting from auto driver inattention specifically at intersections, after the auto driver enters the intersection or turns left at the intersection into the motorcyclist's right of way. The fact that the auto drivers claim that they don't "see" the motorcyclist derives from visual/visual inattentional blindness deriving from subconscious value judgments, e.g., "expectation" and "relevance" determining which visual stimulae will be permitted conscious attention. The cell phone impaired contribute an additional, different form of auditory-internal-cognitive distraction resulting in external-visual inattentional blindness. We suggest that the combination of the two forms of inattentional blindness leads at least to an additive and possibly a synergistic effect to disproportionately increase the dangers for motorcyclists..
We conclude that all cell phone use while driving should be outlawed. Thus far the states which have considered the issue have either rejected bans on cell phone use or have banned only to use of handheld cell phones while driving. It will become more and more obvious that cell phone use needs to be prohibited while driving as the broken bodies and caskets mount. Legislation banning only handheld cell phone use can be expected only to be completely ineffective in reducing the human carnage. Handheld legislation is indeed detrimental because it misinforms the public that the use of hands-free cell phones while driving is "safe."
Cell phone use while driving must be severely penalized, by lengthy drivers license suspension for first time offenders and jail time for repeat offenders, equivalent to the penalties for DUI drunk driving. Fines have proven ineffective in curtailing even handheld cell phone use where drivers had the option to use hands-free cell phones while driving. There is no economic risk/benefit analysis which recommends permitting cell phone use while driving. To the extent that employees may accomplish productive or semi-productive work while driving, the work product will not justify the "expense." Employers beware: if your employee causes an accident while engaged in business related cell phone conversation you will be held liable for the resulting injuries; the benefit will not exceed your cost. The " cost benefit" overall economic detriment is demonstrated also by the fact that the use of cell phones by the commuting work force results in an impediment to traffic flow, traffic delays and longer commutes for all workers. Cell phone users take 19 percent more time to regain flow-of-traffic speed after each braking episode. With one in ten drivers on our streets and highways actively involved in cell phone conversation at any given daylight moment, indeed the effect on traffic flow and city congestion is enormous. The societal costs of driver cell phone use is measured by broken bodies, the loss of our loved ones, medical expense, increased length of driver commutes, city congestion, increased fuel consumption, and the consequent environmental impact. No colorable "benefit" deriving from cell phone use while driving can justify the costs.
War is declared, upon the legislators whose cowardice has led them to resist cell phone bans or to promote ineffective bans on handheld cell phones only. They fear the political consequence of removing this dangerous toy from the hands of the 70 percent of their constituency who value their use. Take notice, as cell phone use continues to increase and as comprehensive bans become recognized as essential for public safety, we will count the numbers of those crippled and dead and we will remind the public of your prevarication and voting history. War is declared upon the employers who urge their employees to use cell phones to conduct business while driving: If your employee injures another, you will be held accountable to pay all recoverable damages. War is also declared upon the cell phone companies: either tell the truth and the whole truth in bold warnings attached to your cell phones, or you too will be held liable for the human carnage that results. And war is declared upon the individual driver who uses his cell phone while driving. Whether or not you have been forewarned, but in particular if you have received warnings from your cell company that driving under the influence of your cell phone results in increased danger that you will cause an accident, beware: if you then injure or kill another while driving under the influence of your cell phone, you too will pay the consequence.
1. Cell Phone Impaired Drivers Are a Menace on Our Streets, They are At Least As Impaired and Dangerous As DUI Drunk Drivers, And Significantly More Likely to Cause Accidents.
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that motorists are 4 times as likely to cause accidents when engaged in cell phone conversation than when not engaged in cell phone conversation. The landmark epidemiological study is Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) �Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions.� New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453. The study examined the telephone records of 699 auto drivers who had caused motor vehicle accidents and found that 24 percent were involved in cell phone conversations at the time of the accidents. The established four fold increased incidence of accidents in association with cell phone use is the same incidence associated with DUI drunk driving. These results were replicated in subsequent epidemiological studies, including another large case-crossover study using similar methodology, again finding a four fold increased incidence of auto accidents among drivers who were using cell phones at the time of the accident. McEvoy, Stevenson, McCartt, Woodward, Haworth, Palamara and Cercarelli, "Role of Mobile Phones in Motorvehicle Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance; A Case-Crossover Study,�"The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II,"
Studies finding that cell phone driving impairment equates with DUI level alcohol intoxication are important for our present purposes because this is a level of driving impairment which has been previously judged by our state legislatures to be sufficiently dangerous to criminalize. If we accept that cell phone impaired drivers are a danger to society objectively equal to DUI level drunk drivers, then we suggest that it follows that cell phone use while driving should also be outlawed and criminalized.
In the most important series of controlled experimental studies performed on cell phone driving impairment to date, it was found again that the driving impairment associated with cell phone use was at least equal to that of DUI level alcohol intoxication. Indeed the incidence of accidents caused by cell phone users during the controlled simulations was found to be significantly greater than the incidence of accidents caused by those whose driving was impaired by DUI level alcohol intoxication. The most recent of the publications is Strayer, Drews and Crouch, �A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver,� Human Factors, Summer 2006. Strayer first announced his findings demonstrating DUI level impairment associated with cell phone use in 2003. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). �Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver.� In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30).
The previous cell phone impairment studies by Strayer, et al, most of which are discussed more fully infra, constitute equally important foundation for our understanding of the nature and extent of cell phone driving impairment. They establish the level of cell phone driving impairment experimentally, under controlled conditions, in a variety of simulated driving contexts, measuring, for example, cell phone impairment of driver ability to detect, recognize and act on traffic signals, and to brake and avoid accidents when a car ahead applies its brakes. The previous Strayer work is also very important to demonstrate that cell phone impairment results from an indiscriminate �inattentional blindness� resulting from diversion of attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation, specifically not deriving from any aspect of handling, holding or dialing the device. The previous Strayer studies also establish that cell phone driving impairment cannot be modified or reduced below DUI level by multi-task �practice� or �experience� driving while talking on a cell phone. Furthermore, the earlier Strayer work is important in establishing that the driving impairment associated with cell phone conversation is much more potent than other common �old standard� driver �distractions� such as listening to the radio or listening to recorded books; indeed, significantly more potent in impairing driving than participating in conversation with vehicle passengers. See, Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). �Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological Science,� 12, 462-466. McCarley, J. S., Vais, M., Pringle, H., Kramer, A. F., Irwin, D. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2001). �Conversation disrupts visual scanning of traffic scenes.� Paper presented at Vision in Vehicles, Australia. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., Albert, R. W., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). �Cell phone induced perceptual impairments during simulated driving.� In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2001: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). �Why do cell phone conversations interfere with driving?� Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving.� Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23-23. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Are we being driven to distraction? Public Policy Perspectives,� Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah) Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. (2003). �Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers.� In the Proceedings of the 47nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp.. 1860-1864). Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). �Fatal distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver.� In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30). Strayer, D. L., Cooper, J. M., & Drews, F. A. (2004). �What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?� In the Proceedings of the 48nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp 2213-2217). McCarley, J.S., Vais, M.J., Pringle, H., Kamer, A.F., Irwin, D.E., & Strayer, D.L. (2004) �Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes.� Human Factors, 46, 424-436. Strayer, D.L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). �Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers.� Human Factors, 46, 640-649. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. Crouch, D. J., & Johnston, W. A. (2005). �Why do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere with Driving?� In W. R. Walker and D. Herrmann (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: Essays on the Transformation of Thought and Society (pp. 51-68), McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC.)
2. Cell Phone Impaired Drivers May Pose An Even Greater Danger To Motorcyclists Than Has Been Discovered To Be The Risk To Motorists Generally. This is Demonstrated (1) By the �Pre-Cell-Phone-Age� Statistics Which Demonstrated that Motorcyclists Are Disproportionately At Risk Resulting from Inattentive Auto Drivers; (2) By The Evidence That Motorcycle Intersection and Right of Way Violation Accidents In Particular Are the Result of Auto Driver �Inattentional Blindness� to Motorcyclists; and (3) By the Distinct Mechanism of Cell Phone Attentional Impairment Which Combined With Auto Driver �Inattentional Blindness� to Motorcycles Suggests the Likelihood of Additive or Synergistic Auto Driver Attentional Impairment Specific For Motorcyclists.
The evidence presented in the preceding section we consider sufficient to justify legislation to outlaw cell phone use while driving. To quote Professor Strayer:"Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive.� To quote study co-author, Assistant Professor Frank Drews: �If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving." Consumer Affairs, June 30, 2006.
There are additional reasons to criminalize the use of cell phones while driving, discussed below, including that the growth in numbers of cell phone users is having the effect to increase traffic congestion and the average lengths of our commutes.
But the question to be answered here is why should motorcyclists in particular want to support or even take the lead in urging our state legislatures to outlaw the use of cell phones while driving.
One answer to that question is that we are more at risk of serious injury and death at the hands of the cell phone impaired than auto drivers who are protected by their thousands of pounds of surrounding metal, interior padding, seat belts, and air bags.
But there is another good reason, and that is that cell phone impaired drivers may pose a much greater risk of causing motorcycle accidents than accidents with other types of vehicles. This has not yet been studied, but we consider that reasonable inferences can be drawn from the existing scientific data. It may be true that scientists at this stage would call it conjecture. But unlike these scientists, we as bikers don�t have the luxury of an indefinite future to determine the precise measurements of the risk, given that our lives will be put at stake perhaps this very afternoon as we ride home from work. In the absence of existing data in point, we suggest that some conclusions can be drawn, evident enough from the statistical information we have already about the most common ways in which auto drivers cause motorcycle accidents, the information yielded by the research on the mechanism of inattentional blindness, and then this most recent research by Strayer, et al., describing the mechanism by which cell phone use impairs driving.
First of all, what we know from the �pre-cell phone age� motorcycle accident studies, that is, studies conducted before cell phones were so commonly in use by the American public, is that fully 2/3 of all multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents were found to result solely from the inattention or negligence of an auto driver, without any fault on the part of the motorcyclist. Two-thirds of that number, or � of the total number of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents were intersection accidents resulting from right of way violations in which an auto driver either entered the intersection or turned left at the intersection into the motorcyclist�s right of way; commonly reporting: �I didn�t see him.� See, e.g., Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. and Thom, D.R., January, 1981, "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures," Volume 1: Technical Report, Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160 (Final Report). These are indeed the tell tale signs and good solid evidence of �pre-cell phone age� auto driver inattentional blindness specific to motorcycles.
As discussed more fully on the other pages of this Motorcyclists-Against-Dumb-Drivers web site, these intersection right of way violation accidents are not the result of the motorcycle�s smaller size, or �lack of conspicuity,� at least as that term has been used in the lay sense to suggest that auto drivers don�t �see� motorcycles because they are smaller or less �visible.� Motorcycles are just as visible as any car at the distance at which a car can pose a threat to a motorcyclist when pulling out into an intersection or turning left at an intersection into the motorcyclist�s right of way. The reason why auto drivers so commonly pull out into intersections into the right of way of motorcyclists is described instead by the somewhat complex phenomenon of �inattentional blindness.� See, �Inattentional Blindness,� Mack & Rock, 1998, and the wealth of good experimental literature which has followed upon this important landmark work.
The scientific literature on inattentional blindness demonstrates through the results of what are truly ingenious study designs, the mechanisms by which the landscape of visual stimuli which enter our �subconscious� through our eyes is extensively processed, only after which a selected subset of the visual information is permitted through to our �conscious attention.� We may think that what we�see� is similar to what a videotape might record, but that couldn�t be further from the truth. What our eyes perceive is received, true enough, meaning received into the subconscious, but then it is processed, indeed processed extensively, and then only in very late subconscious processing is the "bottleneck" selection process accomplished by which our subconscious �decides� what small subset of the totality of visual information will be allowed to reach our conscious attention.
Many of the criteria utilized by the subconscious to select visual stimuli for conscious attention have been identified, including most important, we believe, in this context, �expectation,� the selection of those stimuli which we �expect� to see (such as cars rather than motorcycles), and �relevance,� those objects which we consider more pertinent to our immediate task objective (in this context, the preferential selection drawing attention to the multi-thousand pound car, truck or bus, which might severely injure or kill the auto driver, in contrast to the lesser �relevance� of a motorcycle, which is likely to pose a much smaller threat to the auto driver).
�Inattentional blindness� describes the phenomenon by which we fail to �see� that which is right in front of us. It is the phenomenon that results from the selection process by which that which is fully apparent, right in front of us, square at the center of our visual field, will be so processed and selected "out" by our subconscious so that it will not reach our conscious attention. And if it is processed but selected not to reach our conscious attention, our conscious experience is indeed that we don�t �see� it. It is the equivalent of the old question, �If a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, does it make a sound.� Well, the answer in this context is �No.� If a visual stimulus is not permitted forward from our subconscious through the bottleneck to our conscious attention, then we don�t �see� it. In the words of Mack and Rock: �Only those objects to which attention is either voluntarily directed or that capture attention at a late stage of processing are perceived. It is as if attention provides the key that unlocks the door dividing unconscious from conscious perception. Without this key, there is no awareness of the stimulus.� Mack and Rock, supra. And this is indeed why, even prior to the advent of cell phones, the auto driver who pulled out in front of a motorcyclist at an intersection into his right of way and crippled or killed him would commonly turn to the police officer wide eyed and say �Uhh, Sorry, Man, I just didn�t see him.�
Now, what we should all be very concerned about as motorcyclists is that the most recent cell phone studies have determined that the mechanism by which cell phones result in driving impairment is by an attentional impairment, a different kind of inattentional blindness, this one resulting from the motorist's shifting attention to the "auditory" stimuli and higher level internal cognitive functions involved in the give and take of cell phone conversation, reducing our capacity to attend to the distinct external visual-spacial stimuli as is essential for safe driving.
To fully appreciate the contribution of cell phone driving impairment to degrade motorcyclist safety, either as separate source of danger or as potential synergistic factor in combination with preexisting auto driver inattentional blindness for motorcyclists, it is essential to understand the nature of cell phone driving impairment as illustrated by the available scientific literature.
We consider these Strayer, et al. studies particularly important in terms of motorcyclist safety. This is because of the earlier observations of Harry Hurt, 1981, and others that the greatest "pre-cell-phone-age" contributor to the incidence of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents was auto driver inattention to motorcyclists; and because this preexisting auto driver inattentional blindness specific to motorcyclists is at least exacerbated linearly and possibly synergistically when the auto driver is on the phone, involved in separate pathway auditory and higher level cognitive tasks different from the pathway responsible for processing visual stimuli.
On the one hand we have the preexisting auto driver inattentional blindness which the IB literature suggests most likely results from such factors as failure to �expect� a motorcycle and internal values of reduced �relevance� attached to oncoming motorcycles, evident prior to the age of common use of cell phones, and now an entirely different mechanism of attentional impairment resulting from the use of cell phones while driving, in which conscious attention is diverted from the visual-spacial-manual tasks essential for driving to the internal cognitive give and take of the cell phone conversation. Each interfere with the auto driver's ability to "see" what is directly in front of his eyes. Referring to driving under the influence of cell phones, Strayer pointed out: �Even when participants direct their gaze at objects in the driving environment, they often fail to �see� them when they are talking on a cell phone because attention has been directed away from the external environment and toward an internal, cognitive context associated with the phone conversation.� Strayer, 2006, supra.
The �multi-tasking� use of the cell phone while driving is considered by Strayer, et al. likely to be substantially more distracting because it is �cognitively engaging.� �Drivers [while using cell phones] are more likely to miss critical traffic signals (traffic lights, a vehicle breaking in front of the driver, etc.), slower to respond to signals that they do detect, and more likely to be involved in ... collisions when they are conversing on a cell phone [than baseline or drunk drivers.] ... In the case of the cell phone driver, the impairments appear to be attributable, in large part, to the diversion of attention from the processing of information necessary for the safe operation of a motor vehicle.� Strayer, et al., 2006, supra. (Please note that the above list of traffic signal and braking scenarios is not meant to be exclusive in terms of driving activities impaired by cell phone use; it just represents the driving scenarios which Strayer has chosen thus far to test. He has not yet tested, for example, auto driver impairment of recognition of visual stimuli essential to respect rights of way at intersections. Our concern indeed is that cell phone driver impairment may be even more pronounced as the emotional charge of the conversation and the difficulty of the driving tasks increase.)
In another set of experiments, Strayer et al. examined the effect of hands-free cell phone conversation to assess whether impairment of drivers reactions to traffic signals and vehicles braking in front of them might properly be attributed to withdrawal of attention from the scene �yielding a form of inattention blindness" similar but distinct from the intattentional blindness identified by Mack & Rock, given that cell phone induced inattentional blindness results from auditory-cognitive interference with visual-spacial perception rather than the selective processing of competing visual stimuli evident in Mack and Rock's research. See, e.g., Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Cell Phone Induced Failures of Visual Attention During Simulated Driving.� Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 9, pp. 23-23. The authors concluded: �These data extend our earlier observations of impaired detection and reaction to traffic signals [citations omitted] and sluggish reaction to brake lights when participants are engaged in cell phone conversations. We suggest that even when participants are directing their gaze at objects in the driving environment that they may fail to 'see' them because attention is directed elsewhere. The indication of cell phone-induced inattention blindness extends laboratory-based demonstrations of apparent failures of visual attention to the driving domain. (Mack & Rock, ['Inattentional Blindness'], 1998).�
Strayer, et al. distinguished his own findings of "dual pathway" cell phone conversation inattentional blindness from the distinct single pathway inattentional blindness described by Mack & Rock resulting from the subconscious competition for attention for multiple visual stimuli. �One important difference between these earlier studies and our present work is that the former involved presentation of simultaneous (and often overlapping) visual images, whereas our research involved the combination of visual (i.e., the driving environment) and auditory (i.e., the cell phone conversation) information. This suggests that the locus of the effect is at a central attentional level and not due to structural interference or overload of a perceptual or response channel.� We consider this important to our thesis that the combination of the two distinct pathway attentional impairments likely combine to result in even more profound driving impairment of the auto driver's ability to "see" the oncoming motorcycle, indeed, possibly much more profound impairment as the interaction may produce a synergistic effect.
There is converging neurological evidence from investigators at Johns Hopkins providing additional support for Stayer�s conclusions with regard to the "attentional" interference of auditory cell phone conversation on capacity to detect visual stimuli in the driving environment. Shomstein, S., Yantis, S. �Control of Attention Shifts Between Vision and Audition in Human Cortex.� The Journal of Neuroscience, November 24, 2004, 24(47):10702-10706. Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Stromstein and Yantis recorded their experimental subjects� brain activity while involved in shifts back and forth between visual and auditory activity. Significantly, they noted that when attention was shifted to one, either visual or auditory stimuli, the parts of the brain associated with the other demonstrated reduced activity. This would imply a zero sum trade off between auditory and visual attention. Suggesting that there is an additional attentional cost to "switching" between the auditory and visual, Shomstein and Yantis observed that there was an additional, separate, "transitional" brain function evident in bursts of activity in certain aspects of the brain as attention was redirected. The Shomstien and Yantis research provides neurological support now to the experimental evidence of Strayer et al. that the mechanism of cell phone driving impairment is a form of �inattentional blindness� (supporting also Strayer's persuasive anticipatory rebuttal to theoretical models of diverted attention that might be argued to suggest that cell phone conversation, “an auditory-verbal-vocal task,” can be successfully “timeshared” with driving, “a visual-spacial-manual task.”)
�Selective attention contributes to perceptual efficiency by modulating cortical activity according to task demands. Visual attention is controlled by activity in posterior parietal and superior frontal cortices, but little is known about the neural basis of attentional control within and between other sensory modalities. We examined human brain activity during attention shifts between vision and audition. Attention shifts from vision to audition caused increased activity in auditory cortex and decreased activity in visual cortex and vice versa, reflecting the effects of attention on sensory representations. Posterior parietal and superior prefrontal cortices exhibited transient increases in activity that were time locked to the initiation of voluntary attention shifts between vision and audition. These findings reveal that the attentional control functions of posterior parietal and superior prefrontal cortices are not limited to the visual domain but also include the control of crossmodal shifts of attention.� Id.
In an interview, professor Yantis made plain the significance of his findings on the specific issue of cell phone driving impairment:�Our research helps explain why talking on a cell phone can impair driving performance, even when the driver is using a hands-free device ... Directing attention to listening effectively 'turns down the volume' on input to the visual parts of the brain. The evidence we have right now strongly suggests that attention is strictly limited -- a zero-sum game. When attention is deployed to one modality -- say, in this case, talking on a cell phone -- it necessarily extracts a cost on another modality -- in this case, the visual task of driving." Consumer Affairs, June 22, 2005.
Significantly, evidence that the attentional impairment associated with cell phone use can act as an on-off switch, competent to block out even the most crucial of visual stimuli essential for safe driving, Strayer found that cell phone inattentional blindness extended even to stimuli which would otherwise be considered preferentially or automatically sufficient to elicit attention. In one study, Strayer, et al. found that “cell phone conversations interfere with the automatic attention-capturing properties of sudden onset stimuli occurring in the driving environment.” Strayer, supra, 2003. The significance of the finding is that stimuli that appear as sudden onsets are "thought to capture attention automatically,� Id., and so the fact that the cell phone impaired do not "see" sudden onset events illustrates the indiscriminate blindness of the cell phone impaired while attention is directed to internal-cognitive stimuli and away from external-visual stimuli.
Strayer et al. preemptively rebutted any potential argument that when drivers engage in cell phone conversation they may attempt to strategically reallocate attention from the processing of less relevant information in the driving scene (e.g., billboards) to the cell phone conversation while continuing to give highest priority to the processing of task-relevant information in the driving scene (e.g., the car in front of them). These experiments included eye tracking devices and, as observed by Strayer, that data �did not provide support for this [prioritization] interpretation because participants looked at billboards equally often in single and dual task conditions.� Id. Attention essential to the detection of all visual stimuli was impaired when the driver was involved in cell phone conversation, that is, stimuli meaningful to the driving task and stimuli not meaningful to the driving task alike.
Strayer et al., bolstered this conclusion by their observation that �Any reasonable account of task relevance would have to include attending to the vehicle immediately in front of the driver. Nevertheless, the car following paradigm ... found significant impairments in driving performance when participants were conversing on a hands-free cell phone. If participants were attempting to focus on more task-relevant information in the driving scene, then this strategy proved to be inadequate because dual-task interference was observed even with task-relevant information in the driving scene. We suggest that the most straightforward interpretation of the dual task deficits in explicit memory .. is that attention was diverted from the visual scene immediately associated with driving (of both higher and lower relevance) to the cell phone conversation.�
The capacity for �change detection� as applied to complex traffic scenes, and in particular the ability to notice significant changes, is extremely important for safe driving. This also was the subject of one Strayer experiment to test whether it was possible that the mind was capable of prioritizing so that it could attend to the telephone conversation and still attend to the meaningful changes in the complex visual landscape while driving. The answer was no, that there was no apparent prioritizing of attention to significant changes in the driving environment while participants were engaged in conversation on the cell phone. The drivers whose attention was impaired by cell phone conversation consistently failed to see both meaningful and less meaningful changes in the traffic scenes essentially indiscriminately. McCarley, J.S., Vais, M.J., Pringle, H., Kamer, A.F., Irwin, D.E., & Strayer, D.L. (2004) �Conversation Disrupts Change Detection in Complex Traffic Scenes.� Human Factors, 46, 424-436.
In subsequent study results Strayer, et al. found that even those objects to which the drivers affixed their eyes they often failed to �see� while conversing on the telephone. Strayer again explicitly attributed the phenomenon to cell phone induced inattentional blindness. Strayer, D. L., Cooper, J. M., & Drews, F. A. (2004). �What do Drivers Fail to See When Conversing on a Cell Phone?" In the Proceedings of the 48nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp 2213-2217).
Significantly, Strayer, et al. noted: �We found that even when participants looked directly at objects in the driving environment, they were less likely to create a durable memory of those objects if they were conversing on a cell phone. Moreover, this pattern was obtained for objects of both high and low relevance, suggesting that very little semantic analysis of the objects occurs outside the restricted focus of attention. These data support the inattention-blindness interpretation in which disruptive effects of cell phone conversations on driving are due in large part to the diversion of attention from driving to the phone conversation. We suggest that even when participants are directing their gaze at objects in the driving environment they may fail to �see� them when they are on the phone because attention is directed elsewhere.� Id. See also, Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Are We Being Driven to Distraction?� Public Policy Perspectives, Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah) [�We found that even when drivers were directing their gaze at objects in the driving environment that they often failed to see them because attention was directed elsewhere. Thus, talking on a cell phone creates a form of inattention blindness, making drivers less aware of important information in the driving scene.�]
Applying these lessons here in attempting to sort out the effect of the convergence of preexisting auto driver inattentional blindness for motorcyclists, deriving from factors such as "expectation" and "relevance," and the attention impairment resulting from back and forth shifting from the "auditory-internal-cognitive" to "visual-spacial" and back while driving under the influence of a cell phone, these studies make clear that each exacts its own toll upon the driver's capacity to "see" the motorcyclists. It is as if before the advent of cell phones a substantial percentage of auto drivers were essentially unable to distinguish motorcycles from the visual background, while now we face the same percentage of motorists with the same general attention deficit for motorcyclists, except that now, another 10 percent of all the auto drivers are involved in cell phone driving, attention shifting, putting on and taking off and putting on again their inattentional blindfolds while they drive.
These factors combined suggest that cell phone use while driving may have an even larger, and perhaps a much larger effect on driver inattention to motorcyclists due to the additive or synergistic convergence of the preexisting auto driver attention deficit for auto drivers, now complicated by this epidemic of DUI level cell phone inattentional blindness currently affecting 10 percent of drivers on the road at any given moment. It may be worse. The experimental studies so far have focused only on relatively simple driving tasks such as recognizing traffic signals, responding to a forward braking car, recognizing sudden events and significant changes in the driving landscape. We suggest that the level of cell phone impairment, particularly when combined with the preexisting auto driver attention deficit specific for motorcyclists, may be much more potent in more complex traffic scenarios, such as when the motorist must assess whether to enter an intersection or turn left at an intersection, potentially into the right of way of another. What appears certain is that the impairment will not be less as the difficulty level rises, even if the driver subjectively considers that the visual stimuli at intersections are more "important" or "meaningful" since as Strayer made plain, cell phone induced inattentional blandness is indiscriminate and specifically not selective for the less meaningful. Instead, we suggest that the likelihood is that the impairment will be greater, given that the more complex driving task requires significantly more visual information at a time when the driver's zero-sum attention is divided. Given the preexisting auto driver attention deficit for motorcyclists, the concern is that drivers under the influence of cell phones may be selectively much more dangerous for motorcyclists than for drivers of other vehicles. Both the preexisting deficit and call phone driving impairment derive from inattentional blindness, and while moderated differently each have the same effect to lead the driver to fail to "see" the motorcycle right in front of him. If cell phone conversation results in DUI level impairment as measured for the recognition of traffic signals and braking cars, what level of impairment pertains when the auto driver is already burdened with an attention deficit for motorcycles? This is a question which can only be answered definitively by further research; but in the meantime we suggest that the attentional effect is likely either additive or synergistic. Particularly given that the numbers of those driving under the influence of cell phones are growing at epidemic rates motorcyclists must appreciate the serious and growing danger we face and consider what we can do to avert it.
3. The Use of Cell Phones While Driving Should Be Outlawed. And No Distinction Should be Made Between Handheld and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use.
As a matter of general public health and specifically here, motorcyclist safety, cell phone use while driving needs to be outlawed. Indeed, Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers urges that stiff penalties, such as mandatory lengthy suspensions of driving privileges, followed by jail sentences for repeat offenders should be legislated, and a strict zero tolerance enforcement policy adopted similar to the penalties and enforcement policies for DUI drunk driving. It is essential that cell phone use be banned outright, without exception, or with the sole exception being true emergency, verifiable 911 telephone calls.
Motorists who use hands-free devices are equally impaired and equally as dangerous as those who use handheld cell phones. Cell phone impairment is an attentional impairment, not an impairment associated with holding or dialing, or any other manual aspect of cell phone use. To be effective, all cell phone use while driving must be banned and criminalized.
Outlawing cell phone use while driving should not come as such a leap if we consider the implications of this converging body of epidemiological and controlled experimental research. It is established now that drivers who use cell phones are at least as driving impaired as those who the law considers criminally culpable for driving under the influence of alcohol, and indeed, according to this latest, 2006 Strayer article, supra, more likely than DUI level drunk drivers to cause accidents.
Cell phone driving impairment is indeed without question a greater public health issue than DUI drunk driving, simply because there are so many more drivers using cell phones than drunk drivers on our streets and highways. Let this not be misconstrued. Without any doubt, alcohol induced driving impairment is responsible for a horrifying incidence of death and broken lives each year, and fully deserves to be criminalized and severely punished. But the numbers of the alcohol impaired driving on our streets at any given moment in time simply pales in comparison to the numbers of equally dangerous cell phone impaired drivers. Fully ten percent of drivers on the roadway at any given daylight moment are using their cell phones, that is, actively engaged in the give and take of cell phone conversation. National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) (a probability based observed data study on cell phone use performed by NHTSA.) And as we�ve seen, these auto drivers, currently one in every ten at any given daylight moment, are all at least as driving impaired as DUI drunk drivers, and more likely to cause accidents.
British Medical Journal (July 12, 2005). Additional epidemiological evidence demonstrating driving impairment associated cell phone conversations is DOT HS 810 593 April, 2006. In that NHTSA study it was found that "The use of handheld wireless devices (primarily cell phones) was associated with the highest frequency of secondary task distraction-related events. This was true for both events of lower severity (i.e., incident) and for events of higher severity (i.e., near crashes). Wireless devices were also among the categories associated with the highest frequencies of crashes and minor collisions." Significantly in terms of demonstrating the "attentional" rather than "manual" mechanism of cell phone driving impairment, "All of the crashes and a majority of the near crashes and incidents associated with wireless devices occurred during a cell phone conversation." Driver inattention generally was credited with the greatest contribution to overall accident rates. Significantly, NHTSA found that "Wireless devices, including primarily cell phones ... account for the highest frequency of inattention related occurrences ..."
Now we referred to this (cell phone use) as having the the ability to become habitual and to feed compulsions if not to become one of it's own. We say this because we know of people with many disorders that have a need to continually be in touch with "something." Often times for no other reason than to focus on something other than themselves. Now I couuld go further into this. BUt then that could become a whole other post.
How many people do you know (yourself maybe) or have witnessed, who have had close calls driving while on a cell phone? Yet continue to use a cell phone while driving. Continuing to engage in behaviors despite their negative consequences is a classic definition of "addiction". Motorcyclists are especially aware of this as they are the ones who would be impacted most significantly should a crash occur as a result of cell phone use by an "other vehicle driver".
We would note here that there are a number of motorcyclists now using cellphone while they ride. Did not the dictionary already have a definition for stupidity would would offer this.
Now we have no problem with, say the parachutist, who risk his/her life by engaging in a thrill seeking behavior of their choosing. The chances are that their "choosing" to engage in such risk is not going to threaten the life of another.
What we do have a problem with is people whose behavior puts unwilling participants in danger. Those that claim they are exercising their right to do so are not. What they are doing is engaging in a self indulgent behavior that infringes on the rights of others. As a motorcyclist, I have the right to use the "PUBLIC" roadways with out having a target on my back.
Now we said above that this was going to get a little convoluted but sometimes we do things for a reason. For those who do not understand why alcohol related fatalities are on the rise despite the many programs and laws in place to address the problem.
For those who do not understand why the government would back a program (Basic Rider Education Course) that has not been proven to be effective, but in fact has been proven to be dangerous.
Would you understand it better if we said, "you can not drive safely while using a cell phone so we are going to make it illegal for you to do so?"
My suspicion is that you would engage in the same denial as the Alcoholic and the legislatures. You would suspend belief in the facts to allow yourself to continue to endanger the lives of others to meet your own needs.
This my friends is the problem, our ability to suspend reality as opposed to dealing with it. Because of that my friends, people will continue to die needlessly on the highway no matter how safe the government mandates vehicles to be. After all, how do we build safety features into a pedestrian?
Related links:
Add to Technorati Favorites
